Editorial: Raising Height of Shasta Dam Worth New Look
Redding Record Searchlight - 6/15/03

Here we go again. Once more our politicians are promoting the idea of raising the height of Shasta Dam.

Forgive us if we respond with a yawn. It's not as if the state doesn't need more water we do and the sooner the better but this is an idea at least 20 years old. Our guess is that a person could make a career out of studying the fine points of enlarging the lake.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has introduced a bill in Congress that would explore ways of supplying water that's critically needed for the state's growing population. About $12 million from the $880 million proposal intended for the CALFED water program would go toward the Shasta Dam study. That Feinstein is leading the charge gives the proposal more credibility. The senator carries a lot of weight with environmentalists, who usually like nothing better than to stymie legitimate ideas for water storage.

For starters, that's an outrageous amount of money for a topic that's been studied ad infinitum. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation commissioned one study back in 1983. The bureau updated that study in 1999 when the recommendation was to raise Shasta Dam by 6 feet instead of the 100 or 200 feet talked about before. The dam already measures 602 feet tall. The present proposal is to raise the dam a more reasonable 6 feet.

More study is needed to get a better grasp of the costs. Something isn't right when today's estimate for the project is $122 million when that was the same estimate made four years ago. But by all means, let's save money by telling the report writers they don't have to start from scratch. Blow the dust off the volumes of previous research. We're not reinventing the wheel here.

A higher dam is worth checking into, but an exhaustive list of pros and cons is needed. Putting more water in the state's largest artificial lake would be better for recreation-based businesses. The people who stay on houseboats, use personal watercraft and water-ski certainly would like the added water in the occasional dry years.

Of course a greater volume of water would bring greater fluctuations of the lake level. Docks at the shoreline would have to be adjusted more frequently, causing a hassle for resort workers. The government, at least, should be responsible for the resorts' costs of moving their facilities to higher ground.

One of the biggest benefits would be a reduced threat of the Sacramento River flooding its banks downstream. The revenue from hydroelectric power generation would be greater and more salmon could be kept alive with cooler water. Farmers, too, would have more water for irrigation.

The new study would have to find ways of lessening the environmental impact on rivers and streams that feed the lake, especially a sensitive stretch of the McCloud River. Solutions would be needed for the destruction caused by submerging Indian artifact sites.

Many technical questions would have to addressed. For example, more earthquakes have shaken the ground near Shasta Lake in recent years and experts would have to make sure an enlarged dam could withstand the shaking.

The reality of the north-south water struggles in California is that Southern California will get "our" water anyway. It has the greater population and the votes. It's in Northern California's best interests to get the best deal possible. The north state should guard its water rights through area-of-origin protections and get assurances for the water we need.

Congress should earmark the money in Feinstein's bill for the sake of California's future. We know what happened when the state was caught short of power and more power plants needed to be built. It's the same thing with water planning is needed now. Let's undertake the dam study and this time act on the experts' recommendations. It's too late to plan when a already drought is upon us.

Chico Enterprise Record - Copyright Policy